P5B + Q6600 + latest BIOS == 9x ONLY multiplier??

[jkc120]

Your using auto #1 so the board is adjusting voltage to compensate for the increase in FSB regardless. My chip takes more voltage at 500x7 than it does 400x9 or 450x9.... Set your vcore to like 1.45 or so and see if it posts, then check it again..that was your first mistake to setting it to auto.

Not to mention theres several other factors that come into play, but with my B3 quad on the other rig...it reports 3.6ghz (set to 400x8) CPUZ and all other programs read 3.2ghz. Its a BIOS error, nothing more.

You're saying use a voltage of 1.45 for 400x8? Should it take that much to do 3.2? Sheesh, what would I have to bump it to for 400x9 then? What I'd like to do is try to run it at 450x8, since I've read a few places that this runs cooler than 400x9 for some reason (the CPU, not the chipset).

[highoctane]

Set it to 7x400 and I bet it will post without needing to change any voltage.

[ChaosMinionX]

You're saying use a voltage of 1.45 for 400x8? Should it take that much to do 3.2? Sheesh, what would I have to bump it to for 400x9 then? What I'd like to do is try to run it at 450x8, since I've read a few places that this runs cooler than 400x9 for some reason (the CPU, not the chipset).

You will need to not run AUTO....I merely gave you 1.45 as a starting point as its the usual voltage people use for higher quad OC's....my G0 takes 450x8 @ 1.4875 in bios.... 1.45 in windows or so.

As long as your temps are in line... like idling under 50C you should be fine to test that the board is making an error in the display of the clock, not that its actually running that clock. Dont go over 1.55v on air as a good safety measure.

[jkc120]

You will need to not run AUTO....I merely gave you 1.45 as a starting point as its the usual voltage people use for higher quad OC's....my G0 takes 450x8 @ 1.4875 in bios.... 1.45 in windows or so.

As long as your temps are in line... like idling under 50C you should be fine to test that the board is making an error in the display of the clock, not that its actually running that clock. Dont go over 1.55v on air as a good safety measure.

Thanks! I'll start with 1.45 and go from there at 450x8 and see where I get

[drynyks]

I am 100% positive it isnt working and like I said Ive yet to find 1 post that has anyone using 8x that is working on the p5bs with a Q6600 (g0 at least). You are the first person I have seen that has reported it working. I would guess upon further inspection you would see that it wasnt working and in fact you were running at 3.6ghz. I tested at lower fsb speeds so that even if the 8x wasn't working it would still get in to windows. I had different programs showing different speeds but Im positive it was running at the faster speed. I played with it for a whole night because I really wanted the higher fsb. So at this point rather than speculate someone show it working. Temps are a great indicator and benchmarks will show it. Not the programs that read the speed. did you maybe have a different bios? Im using 1216

[jkc120]

I am 100% positive it isnt working and like I said Ive yet to find 1 post that has anyone using 8x that is working on the p5bs with a Q6600 (g0 at least). You are the first person I have seen that has reported it working. I would guess upon further inspection you would see that it wasnt working and in fact you were running at 3.6ghz. I tested at lower fsb speeds so that even if the 8x was working it would still get in to windows. I had different programs showing different speeds but Im positive it was running at the faster speed. I played with it for a whole night because I really wanted the higher fsb. So at this point rather than speculate someone show it working. Temps are a great indicator and benchmarks will show it. Not the programs that read the speed. did you maybe have a different bios? Im using 1216

I think you're right and the multiplier IS stuck.

I tried to boot at 450x"8". Of course the BIOS reported the CPU at 4 GHz. I started at 1.4875 V and it wasn't stable. I went all the way up to 1.5375, and it still wasn't stable.

So I gave up and decided to try 425x"8". I got all the way up to 1.525 and it wasn't stable.

I then tried 400x"8" and it wasn't even stable at 1.4875. I didn't bother trying to go higher, as it's getting really late. But as a reference point, it's running stable at 378x9 (3.4 GHz) at 1.4375 V. So if 400x"8" is truly 400x8 (3.2 GHz), I would think it'd be stable with 1.4875 V.

I'm really not convinced the multiplier is being honored. If it is, then I can't explain the above. I can't even get it to 400x8 stable??? It's not like a 378 FSB is much lower than 400. 3.4 GHz (9x378) at 1.4375 V

stable, but 3.2 GHz (8x400) at 1.4875 not? Something's wrong here.

If the multiplier is indeed stuck at 9, then it really explains these results. My initial attempt at 450x8 would be 4 GHz and it would make sense that not even 1.5375 V would keep it stable. Likewise, 425x9 (3.8 GHz) wasn't stable with 1.525 V and that also makes sense (I'd think I would need 1.55 or better to do 3.8, and then we're talking water cooling territory).

So can someone explain these results? The only explanation I can come up with is that the multiplier is in fact stuck at 9x.

[ChaosMinionX]

There is really a very slim chance your processor booted 450x9 at 1.4875 Meaning its running at 3.6ghz (450x8) most likely. And is that a B3? And what cooling do you have on it? There really is no guarantee that chip can even run 400fsb stable, or run over 3ghz stable...most B3's didnt like to OC that well at all. If your temps are running high, chances are its not going to be stable.

[jkc120]

There is really a very slim chance your processor booted 450x9 at 1.4875 Meaning its running at 3.6ghz (450x8) most likely. And is that a B3? And what cooling do you have on it? There really is no guarantee that chip can even run 400fsb stable, or run over 3ghz stable...most B3's didnt like to OC that well at all. If your temps are running high, chances are its not going to be stable.

It's a G0, and it runs at 3.4 GHz at 1.4375 V. Why wouldn't it run stable at 400x8 and be much hotter? It simply doesn't add up. I guess I got a crappy G0 chip, I guess. I'm using a Zalman 9500 (unlapped). The temps are ok, though. Idle less than 43 C on all the above mentioned attempted boots (I got far enough to run chm in FreeBSD to check temps).

*edit* at 378x9 with Vcore 1.4375 my idle temp is 34 C and the load temp is 54 C. Those are pretty good for that voltage/fsb/multiplier, right? I don't see why I can't run 400x8 without Vcore 1.5 V+. Doesn't make sense.

[ChaosMinionX]

That your problem right there....your using a dinky cooler on a quad and trying to OC it like mad Dual Core that cooler was fine, Quad move up to a Thermalright Ultra-120...and if your chip does 4050mhz 450x9 at 1.4875 that is a very nice chip...however its highly unlikely, and is only the fact that the bios is reporting the speed wrong. Stability of anychip has alot to do with thermal management, and sometimes it comes down to a hardware limitation.

If you had windows installed you could easily see that.

And in my findings of FSB and chips....My quad will do 400x9 at like 1.4-1.45v 450x8 at 1.4875... and 500x7 takes anywhere from 1.5 to 1.55 for complete stability as well as an increase to NBvoltage and vFSB....there are numerous factors to describe your overclocking woes..... but that board is running the multi and FSB you set, just not reading the change....

[jkc120]

That your problem right there....your using a dinky cooler on a quad and trying to OC it like mad Dual Core that cooler was fine, Quad move up to a Thermalright Ultra-120...and if your chip does 4050mhz 450x9 at 1.4875 that is a very nice chip...however its highly unlikely, and is only the fact that the bios is reporting the speed wrong. Stability of anychip has alot to do with thermal management, and sometimes it comes down to a hardware limitation.

If you had windows installed you could easily see that.

And in my findings of FSB and chips....My quad will do 400x9 at like 1.4-1.45v 450x8 at 1.4875... and 500x7 takes anywhere from 1.5 to 1.55 for complete stability as well as an increase to NBvoltage and vFSB....there are numerous factors to describe your overclocking woes..... but that board is running the multi and FSB you set, just not reading the change....

Mine isn't even coming close to running 400x9 at 1.4 - 1.45v. As I said, it won't even do 400x8 at 1.4875. That seems fishy to me. I am going to install some sort of windows live cd I guess, so I can run CPU-Z.

I've got a Thermalright 120 Extreme on order, which should arrive Monday. However, I didn't ask them to lap it (it was $15). I think I should have...so I'm going to order another one lapped, and return the one arriving Monday. We'll see how my temps are then, but again, temperatures do NOT seem to be my problem, other than having to set 1.5v+ just for 400x8 (which I shouldn't have to do, I've not seen anyone else with a G0 Q6600 having to use so many volts to hit 3.2 GHz). Perhaps CPU-Z will shed some light on the situation.

[ChaosMinionX]

Mine isn't even coming close to running 400x9 at 1.4 - 1.45v. As I said, it won't even do 400x8 at 1.4875. That seems fishy to me. I am going to install some sort of windows live cd I guess, so I can run CPU-Z.

I've got a Thermalright 120 Extreme on order, which should arrive Monday. However, I didn't ask them to lap it (it was $15). I think I should have...so I'm going to order another one lapped, and return the one arriving Monday. We'll see how my temps are then, but again, temperatures do NOT seem to be my problem, other than having to set 1.5v+ just for 400x8 (which I shouldn't have to do, I've not seen anyone else with a G0 Q6600 having to use so many volts to hit 3.2 GHz). Perhaps CPU-Z will shed some light on the situation.

Its working, your chip just might not be able to handle it, its very likely.

[jkc120]

Its working, your chip just might not be able to handle it, its very likely.

You're right, CPU-Z reports the proper speed based on the multiplier I set.

So as it stands, my system just is incapable of 400 FSB. I should try 400x7 I guess or 400x6 just to see if it's the motherboard/chipset that's having the problem, or what.

Currently I'm running at 3.4GHz (378x9) at 1.4375v stable. Idle temp is 34-35 C, which is really good. Temperature at load is 56 C. I'm hoping once I get my Thermalright 120 Extreme that'll be well below 30/50 C respectively. Since it doesn't seem to be an overheating barrier with this chip, I guess I'm stuck with 3.4 (378x9). Could be worse, I suppose.

Any suggestions for what I can try here? I never had to adjust the FSB voltage when I ran 400 FSB on my E6600. Could that be causing the instability? Would you mind saving your BIOS settings via the Overclock utility and send it my way?

[punisher69]

you might have to increase vMCH voltages to get it at 400

[jkc120]

you might have to increase vMCH voltages to get it at 400

Is that the FSB voltage? Is there a reason why I'd have to increase this for 400 on a Q6600, when I didn't for an E6600? I don't see anywhere to change "vMCH"...

[punisher69]

quads are very different and 400 fsb is nearing max on that board with a q6600

vmch = Memory controller hub

now mabey i overlooked the thread but i did'nt happen to see what ram you are using.

you could also try drynyks settings of

FSB Termination Voltage 1.450
NB VCore 1.65

He is running a q6600 go on a Asus p5b Deluxe.

edit: why not shoot drynyks a pm. see if he can be of any assistance to you.

[[XC] 4X4N]

You're right, CPU-Z reports the proper speed based on the multiplier I set.

So as it stands, my system just is incapable of 400 FSB. I should try 400x7 I guess or 400x6 just to see if it's the motherboard/chipset that's having the problem, or what.

Currently I'm running at 3.4GHz (378x9) at 1.4375v stable. Idle temp is 34-35 C, which is really good. Temperature at load is 56 C. I'm hoping once I get my Thermalright 120 Extreme that'll be well below 30/50 C respectively. Since it doesn't seem to be an overheating barrier with this chip, I guess I'm stuck with 3.4 (378x9). Could be worse, I suppose.

Any suggestions for what I can try here? I never had to adjust the FSB voltage when I ran 400 FSB on my E6600. Could that be causing the instability? Would you mind saving your BIOS settings via the Overclock utility and send it my way?

I'm working on a q6600 and p5b deluxe right now. I have had this board over 500 fsb with several chips, but all dual core. To get over 400 fsb stable I have had to up the fsb termination, nb, and sb. Although I'm not sure yet if the increase in sb voltage is needed. Quad core is a totally different animal. For me it's not worth it to for extra fsb. I'm priming it right now at 9x390.

Also about your temps. You will never get the temps you are seeking with that much voltage, unless your ambient is 15c. These run much hotter than dual cores.

[highoctane]

I think my P5B Deluxe maxed out at around 425 with my B3 q6600, its been a while though but it was definitely somewhere around 425.

[jkc120]

I think my P5B Deluxe maxed out at around 425 with my B3 q6600, its been a while though but it was definitely somewhere around 425.

Thanks all! So I'm not necessarily seeing a limitation of my G0 Q6600, but rather my P5B? Do you have any suggestions for a motherboard (preferably < $150) that can do 450x8 with the Q6600?

[ChaosMinionX]

Get something P35 based....I think they are down to a reasonable price by now.

[jkc120]

Get something P35 based....I think they are down to a reasonable price by now.

Hmm FreeBSD 6.x doesn't support the ICH9 stuff on P35 motherboards. So I'll have to wait. I am fine with 3.4 (378x9) for now. My temps aren't bad (36/56), but I'm hoping the Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme drops that to 32/52 and then when I lap it, I'm hoping those will drop below 30 and 50 respectively. If I'm getting a significant temperature drop, perhaps I'll consider trying for 425x8 or 450x8 at that point. If it's a no go, no biggie. I'm not really going to miss 22 MHz of FSB and 200 MHz of clock speed, really